God

[inquiringmind]

As I said on another thread, "God" is a big word that could mean many things.

To a Muslim it means one person, to a creedal Christian it means three persons of one essence, to a Hindu it means thousands of entities who are emmenations of "The One," and I'm still trying to figure out what it means to Mormons.

Must it mean nothing more than the biggest and smartest of billions (or maybe infinite numbers) of uncreated entities who exist (along with space, time, matter, and physical laws) by some happy accident (without the need for any ultimate God above them, and without any mind or purpose behind their existence)???

Is that what Orthodox Mormon Theology comes down to???

Is that what I'd have to believe to be a Mormon????

Is there some other way of understanding Mormon doctrine?

Could the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) be an emenation of some infinite intelligence, like Plato's Demiurge?

Could there be a finite or infinite regress of Gods that are all somehow emenations of some infinite intelligence?

Could time, and space, and matter, and any finite God or Gods all have some ultimate ground of being (and some infinite mind and purpose behind their existence)?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Damien the Leper]

Whoa! I'm not sure my mind is cut out for this kind of thinking just yet. I'm not equipped for such a philosophical argument.

[Log]

How does any religion on your view escape the accusation of "happy accident," such as a God which simply happened to be the ground of all being?

[Nofear]

I'll go with Joseph Smith's interpretation as he presented in the King Follett Discourse:

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

Why or how it is that he is "more intelligent" to me is rather moot. I may entertain some speculations, but I won't ever claim them as doctrine. Nevertheless, I am still immensely grateful that he has instituted a Plan of Happiness whereby I have the opportunity to obtain an eternal life like unto his with the full level of felicity that he currently enjoys.

[inquiringmind]

How does any religion on your view escape the accusation of "happy accident," such as a God which simply happened to be the ground of all being?

I'll have to think about that.

But Islam, Judaism, Traditional Christianity, and Hinduism all escape the accusation of multiple (perhaps infinite), unrelated "happy accidents."

I again ask:

Does latter day revelation require me to believe the "God" is nothing more than the biggest and smartest of billions (or maybe infinite numbers) of uncreated entities who exist (along with space, time, matter, and physical laws) by some happy accident (without the need for any ultimate God above them, and without any mind or purpose behind their existence)???

Is that what Orthodox Mormon Theology comes down to???

Is that what I'd have to believe to be a Mormon????

Is there some other way of understanding Mormon doctrine?

Could the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) be an emenation of some infinite intelligence, like Plato's Demiurge?

Could there be a finite or infinite regress of Gods that are all somehow emenations of some infinite intelligence?

Could time, and space, and matter, and any finite God or Gods all have some ultimate ground of being (and some infinite mind and purpose behind their existence)?

[altersteve]

The only thing latter-day revelation "requires" you to believe is that Heavenly Father lives, that He loves us, and that we are His children. Everything else about the nature of God is secondary to that.

[inquiringmind]

I'll go with Joseph Smith's interpretation as he presented in the King Follett Discourse:

Is that the same discourse in which he supposedly said that infants who die remain infants forever (even after they're exalted)?

That they'll be exalted as infants, and never have adult bodies?

Is that the same discourse that we have (as I've been told time and time again) only a highly questionable text of (and that had never been accepted as official Church doctrine)?

[inquiringmind]

The only thing latter-day revelation "requires" you to believe is that Heavenly Father lives, that He loves us, and that we are His children. Everything else about the nature of God is secondary to that.

Thank you.

[guitarist]

Is that the same discourse in which he supposedly said that infants who die remain infants forever (even after they're exalted)?

That they'll be exalted as infants, and never have adult bodies?

Is that the same discourse that we have (as I've been told time and time again) only a highly questionable text of (and that had never been accepted as official Church doctrine)?

I think you're taking that point out of context. It was simply said that there'd be no growth in the grave, meaning that if someone died as a child, they wouldn't instantaneously get an adult body when it was resurrected. They'd get their body as it was when the spirit parted from it, save it would be without blemish. The conclusion generally made from there is that the body will then grow up to an adult form, allowing the child to experience "growing up". I am not aware of anyone in the church advocating that celestialized beings who were resurrected to the body of a child would remain in the form of a child forever.

[inquiringmind]

I think you're taking that point out of context. It was simply said that there'd be no growth in the grave...

That's not what was said, and I'm taking nothing out of context if Joseph's words were recorded accurately.

Here's how they read:

But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

Notice that the context spoken of is a future resurrection (i.e. "...as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead"), and the tense used is the future tense (i.e." It will never grow; it will still be the child.")

I don't believe that, but if Joseph said or meant something else, maybe that's why the King Follet Sermon isn't doctrine?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[altersteve]

Thank you.

Anytime, brother.

[CV75]

Must it mean nothing more than the biggest and smartest of billions (or maybe infinite numbers) of uncreated entities who exist (along with space, time, matter, and physical laws) by some happy accident (without the need for any ultimate God above them, and without any mind or purpose behind their existence)???

Is that what Orthodox Mormon Theology comes down to???

Is that what I'd have to believe to be a Mormon????

Is there some other way of understanding Mormon doctrine?

Could the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) be an emenation of some infinite intelligence, like Plato's Demiurge?

Could there be a finite or infinite regress of Gods that are all somehow emenations of some infinite intelligence?

Could time, and space, and matter, and any finite God or Gods all have some ultimate ground of being (and some infinite mind and purpose behind their existence)?

I would say these are good sources:

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/g/22

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng

I do not agree sevecral aspects of the “nothing more” definition you provided. I do agree God is the smartest (but also much more than that).

Because God is a Personal Being, what a Mormon believes with regards to Him is his own business and between him and God. His belief may correspond with the information in the links above, or not. The only things you have to do to be a Mormon are to answer the right questions to the satisfaction of the authorized priesthood interviewer (whether baptismal, temple recommend, or other), be baptized and confirmed.

There are many ways to understand Mormon doctrine. If you experience Alma 32 first-hand, you are on a / the (depending on how broad a question you are addressing) right track; if not experiencing this expansion, you are not understanding Mormon doctrine.

I have no issue with the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) employing an emanation of some infinite intelligence. I also suppose that anything else that exists is such a thing, to some degree or another.

I suppose there could be a finite or infinite regress of Gods that are all somehow emanations of some infinite intelligence (just as my own children and descendants are emanations from my wife and me), but only one of a regress of Gods would be the God I worship, even though they are probably all the same and united in some fashion.

I think everyone and everything has some ultimate ground of being (and some infinite mind and purpose behind their existence), whether it is their own (to the degree they act) or someone else’s (to the degree they are acted upon).

[inquiringmind]

I would say these are good sources:

http://classic.scrip....org/en/bd/g/43

http://classic.scrip....org/en/gs/g/22

http://www.lds.org/s...father?lang=eng

I do not agree sevecral aspects of the “nothing more” definition you provided. I do agree God is the smartest (but also much more than that).

Because God is a Personal Being, what a Mormon believes with regards to Him is his own business and between him and God. His belief may correspond with the information in the links above, or not. The only things you have to do to be a Mormon are to answer the right questions to the satisfaction of the authorized priesthood interviewer (whether baptismal, temple recommend, or other), be baptized and confirmed.

There are many ways to understand Mormon doctrine. If you experience Alma 32 first-hand, you are on a / the (depending on how broad a question you are addressing) right track; if not experiencing this expansion, you are not understanding Mormon doctrine.

I have no issue with the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) employing an emanation of some infinite intelligence. I also suppose that anything else that exists is such a thing, to some degree or another.

I suppose there could be a finite or infinite regress of Gods that are all somehow emanations of some infinite intelligence (just as my own children and descendants are emanations from my wife and me), but only one of a regress of Gods would be the God I worship, even though they are probably all the same and united in some fashion.

I think everyone and everything has some ultimate ground of being (and some infinite mind and purpose behind their existence), whether it is their own (to the degree they act) or someone else’s (to the degree they are acted upon).

Thank you.

[Calm]

The only thing latter-day revelation "requires" you to believe is that Heavenly Father lives, that He loves us, and that we are His children. Everything else about the nature of God is secondary to that.

IOU rep point.

[mfbukowski]

Could the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Heavenly Father) be an emenation of some infinite intelligence, like Plato's Demiurge?

Sure.

Go for it.

When you try to fit God into our puny skulls, whatever works for you is as good as anything that works for anyone else. The bottom line is that as long as you pass the Baptismal and Temple Recommend interviews, which have nothing to do with these things, you are good to go.

Just because you disagree with my point of view doesn't mean you are "wrong", and I didn't mean to imply that on the other thread if that's the way you took it.

What do I know? When God appears to me and tells me who is right, I promise to let you know.

[mfbukowski]

I think you're taking that point out of context. It was simply said that there'd be no growth in the grave, meaning that if someone died as a child, they wouldn't instantaneously get an adult body when it was resurrected. They'd get their body as it was when the spirit parted from it, save it would be without blemish. The conclusion generally made from there is that the body will then grow up to an adult form, allowing the child to experience "growing up". I am not aware of anyone in the church advocating that celestialized beings who were resurrected to the body of a child would remain in the form of a child forever.

Agreed.

[inquiringmind]

Sure.

Go for it.

When you try to fit God into our puny skulls, whatever works for you is as good as anything that works for anyone else. The bottom line is that as long as you pass the Baptismal and Temple Recommend interviews, which have nothing to do with these things, you are good to go.

Just because you disagree with my point of view doesn't mean you are "wrong", and I didn't mean to imply that on the other thread if that's the way you took it.

What do I know? When God appears to me and tells me who is right, I promise to let you know.

Thank you.

[inquiringmind]

As I pointed out to guitarist, if Joseph said that there'd "be no growth in the grave," the text we have is inaccurate and unreliable (because that's not what the text says.)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

Inquiring- I posted this on the other thread too- but:

If I was inclined to see things in a more Hindu way, where Brahman is the "ground of being" and that in a sense we are all "one soul" I would see it more in terms of what we call the Church of the Firstborn in which we all become one with God- we see it as more of a family structure where we keep our individuality but become more one in love and purpose as the Godhead is one. I think that way of seeing it is totally in line with LDS beliefs. Also all matter is spirit- the earth itself has a spirit (and the doctrine of the flood is seen as the "baptism" of the earth itself- gaia if you want to see it that way)

The distinction is that we are all individuals- I see us as fields of influence more than anything with a kernal of whatever it is that sees ourselves AS selves- but that we will become one eventually, even as the Godhead is one.

Maybe that helps maybe not. To me, that is as good a metaphor as any. Ultimately this is all poetry in my view since it is so far beyond what we can understand that it kind of doesn't matter which poem works better for any individual.

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

II think we're all part of something, I think there is some ultimate ground of being (and I wouldn't call that poetry), but thank you.

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[guitarist]

That's not what was said, and I'm taking nothing out of context if Joseph's words were recorded accurately.

Here's how they read:

But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

Notice that the context spoken of is a future resurrection (i.e. "...as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead"), and the tense used is the future tense (i.e." It will never grow; it will still be the child.")

I don't believe that, but if Joseph said or meant something else, maybe that's why the King Follet Sermon isn't doctrine?

I don't have the KFD in front of me, or any of the other quotes made by others on the subject (now that I think about it, I think I read the "no growth in the grave" from Doctrines of Salvation), but you make a valid point. The text does likely have some errors, since the text is essentially an amalgamation of 3 scribes' efforts to write down what he said (and since this was essentially a eulogy given at a funeral, they couldn't just stop him and ask him to repeat it). They probably also missed some stuff. But one of the great things about this church is that we are given the gift of the holy ghost to help us discern what is correct doctrine and what is not. As for me, the way I described it makes good sense, and feels true. When I think about the way you interpreted it (and admittedly what the quote you quoted sounds like), it seems almost like a damnation of sorts. If a child were never to grow up, ever, it would admittedly be a little weird (and hilarious) to see the someone who was stillborn in this life to be resurrected, and be the equivalent of a newborn sitting on a throne as a ruler, and rolling together worlds & galaxies. But that child would then never have the full functionality of a fully matured body (and among other things, would probably have some difficulty balancing with a noggin that is over 30% of his body mass), and for someone who was sinless, to me, that would be an unfair damnation.

[Lachoneus]

That's not what was said, and I'm taking nothing out of context if Joseph's words were recorded accurately.

Here's how they read:

But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

Notice that the context spoken of is a future resurrection (i.e. "...as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead"), and the tense used is the future tense (i.e." It will never grow; it will still be the child.")

I don't believe that, but if Joseph said or meant something else, maybe that's why the King Follet Sermon isn't doctrine?

7. It must be remembered that the above report of the Prophet's remarks, as also the report of the King Follett sermon (preached in April, 1844, and which will appear in Volume V of this history), where the same matter of infants being enthroned in power while remaining of the same stature as when on earth, and at the time of their death, is mentioned—were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. This matter of children after the resurrection remaining of the same stature as at their death is well known to be such an error. The writer of this note distinctly remembers to have heard the late President Wilford Woodruff, who reported the above sermon, say, that the Prophet corrected the impression that had been made by his King Follett sermon, that children and infants would remain fixed in the stature of their infancy and childhood in and after the resurrection. President Woodruff very emphatically said on the occasion of the subject being agitated about 1888-9, that the prophet taught subsequently to his King Follett sermon that children while resurrected in the stature at which they died would develope to the full stature of men and women after the resurrection; and that the contrary impression created by the report of the Prophet's King Follett sermon was due to a misunderstanding of his remarks and erroneous reporting. In addition to this personal recollection of the writer as to the testimony of the late President Wilford Woodruff, the following testimony of Elder Joseph Horne and his wife, M. Isabella Horne, on the same subject is important. The statements here copied were delivered in the presence of President Angus M. Cannon, of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion, and Elder Arthur Winter, at the residence of Brother Horne, in Salt Lake City, on November 19, 1896, and were reported stenographically by Arthur Winter, the Church official reporter.

Sister M. Isabella Horne said:

"In conversation with the Prophet Joseph Smith once in Nauvoo, the subject of children in the resurrection was broached. I believe it was in sister Leonora Cannon Taylor's house. She had just lost one of her children, and I had also lost one previously. The Prophet wanted to comfort us, and he told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. He said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as they were laid down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers. The idea that I got from what he said was that the children would grow and develop in the Millennium, and that the mothers would have the pleasure of training and caring for them, which they bad been deprived of in this life.

"This was sometime after the King Follett funeral, at which I was present."

Brother Joseph Horne said:

"I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say that mothers should receive their children just as they laid them down, and that they would have the privilege of doing for them what they could not do here, the Prophet remarked: "How would you know them if you did not receive them as you laid them down?" I also got the idea that children would grow and develop after the resurrection, and that the mothers would care for them and train them.

"We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct account of the statements made by Joseph and M. Isabella Horne on the subject mentioned.

Angus M. Cannon.

Arthur Winter.

We have read the foregoing, and certify that it is correct.

Joseph Horne. M.

Isabella Horne.

In the Improvement Era for June, 1904, President Joseph F. Smith in an editorial on the Resurrection said:

"The body will come forth as it is laid to rest, for there is no growth or development in the grave. As it is laid down, so will it arise, and changes to perfection will come by the law of restitution. But the spirit will continue to expand and develop, and the body, after the resurrection will develop to the full stature of man."

This may be accepted as the doctrine of the Church in respect to the resurrection of children and their future development to the full stature of men and women; and it is alike conformable to that which will be regarded as both reasonable and desirable

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 4: .)

[inquiringmind]

It must be remembered that the above report of the Prophet's remarks, as also the report of the King Follett sermon (preached in April, 1844, and which will appear in Volume V of this history), where the same matter of infants being enthroned in power while remaining of the same stature as when on earth, and at the time of their death, is mentioned—were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. This matter of children after the resurrection remaining of the same stature as at their death is well known to be such an error...

That was my point.

The King Follet sermon isn't doctrine, and the text we have is unreliable.

Edited April 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

That was my point.

The King Follet sermon isn't doctrine, and the text we have is unreliable.

Agreed.

[Flyonthewall]

In the Preisthood manual Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith, chapter 14, it has this to say about it:

Parents who lose children in death will receive them in the resurrection just as they laid them down.

At the funeral of two-year-old Marian Lyon, the Prophet said: “We have again the warning voice sounded in our midst, which shows the uncertainty of human life; and in my leisure moments I have meditated upon the subject, and asked the question, why it is that infants, innocent children, are taken away from us, especially those that seem to be the most intelligent and interesting. The strongest reasons that present themselves to my mind are these: This world is a very wicked world; and it … grows more wicked and corrupt. … The Lord takes many away, even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on earth; therefore, if rightly considered, instead of mourning we have reason to rejoice as they are delivered from evil, and we shall soon have them again. …

“… The only difference between the old and young dying is, one lives longer in heaven and eternal light and glory than the other, and is freed a little sooner from this miserable, wicked world. Notwithstanding all this glory, we for a moment lose sight of it, and mourn the loss, but we do not mourn as those without hope.”⁵

“A question may be asked—‘Will mothers have their children in eternity?’ Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid.”⁶

“Children … must rise just as they died; we can there hail our lovely infants with the same glory—the same loveliness in the celestial glory.”⁷

President Joseph F. Smith, the sixth President of the Church, reported: “Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: ‘You will have the joy, the pleasure and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.’ …

“In 1854, I met with my aunt [Agnes Smith], the wife of my uncle, Don Carlos Smith, who was the mother of that little girl [sophronia] that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was speaking about, when he told the mother that she should have the joy, the pleasure, and the satisfaction of rearing that child, after the resurrection, until it reached the full stature of its spirit; and that it would be a far greater joy than she could possibly have in mortality, because she would be free from the sorrow and fear and disabilities of mortal life, and she would know more than she could know in this life. I met that widow, the mother of that child, and she told me this circumstance and bore testimony to me that this was what the Prophet Joseph Smith said when he was speaking at the funeral of her little daughter.”⁸

Mary Isabella Horne and Leonora Cannon Taylor each lost a young child in death. Sister Horne recalled that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave the two sisters these words of comfort: “He told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. He said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as they were laid down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers.”⁹